ビル・マクデルモット議員は、ワシントン州選出の下院議員の一人だが、医師でもあり、しばしば、湾岸戦争の帰還兵の病気について考えてきた。彼は伝えられた医学的異変について評価するため個人的にイラク入りしている。彼は小児科医と話し合い、子どものガンの比率が増えていることと、先天的異変が幼児に増えている事についての彼ら・彼女らの考えを知った。

これらは、ＤＵ弾丸が製造されたり、テストされたりした世界のほかの地域（たとえばマサチューセッツ州コンコルド、テネシー州・ジョーンスボロー、ニューメキシコ州ソコロ）で観察されたのと同じ健康問題である。2003年春、彼は帰るやいなや、下院に、ＤＵ兵器の軍事使用を凍結することを求める法案を提出した。

明確に、その法案は、毒物および疾病登録庁や疾病管理防止センターにより共同で行われるＤＵの健康への影響の研究を求めている。加えて、法案は、環境保護庁に対して、ＤＵ弾丸が製造されたり、試射で使用されたりしたアメリカ国内の場所を特定し、可能性のあるＤＵ汚染について、これらの場所の空気や水や土を調べる事としている。

現在、マクデルモット法案は３つの委員会に上程されている。健康小委員会、エネルギー商業委員会、そして軍人委員会である。

当初、マクデルモット法案は、共同提案者は6人だった。民主党、マサチューセッツ州選出の下院議員・エドワード・マーケイも、当初からの共同提案者の一人である。現在は31人である。マクデル・モット事務所は、少なくとも50人の共同提案者がいることを望んでいる。「草の根平和行動」は、他の草の根グループと組んで、この問題に取り組む事、共同提案者を増やす事を意図している
。

ヒラリークリントン上院議員や、エドワード・ケネディー上院議員といった別の上院議員に、上院に、連携した法案が出るよう働きかける運動も進行中だ。こうした法案は、基本的に、劣化ウランによる健康への影響を研究すること、ＤＵで汚染されたアメリカ国内の場所を環境浄化するよう求め
ている。

数年前、シンシア・マッキンニー下院議員（民主、ジョージア州）が、下院に、劣化ウラン弾の禁止に加え、ＤＵが無害と立証されるまで、ＤＵ兵器の製造と使用の禁止も含んで求めた法案を、下院に提出した。マッキンニ−下院議員は、2002年の中間選挙前に予備選挙で敗れ、法案は廃案となった。上院に出るかもしれない法律もこれ以上はおそらく進まないだろう。

マクデルモット法案　1483号は、以下で見る事が出来る。
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c108:./temp/~c108lOEj0S

Subject: ICBUW NEWSLETTER, APRIL 12, 2004

'Friendly Fire' Newsletter 1 Posted on 12 April 2004 by ICBUW

In this Issue:


Editorial

Report: The McDermott Bill

Report: GAO Study

Article: Let's get the story straight

Report: Dutch Military in Iraq...

---

Editorial

At the moment of writing this editorial, the situation of the Japanese hostages in Iraq still remains unclear. A group named the "Saraya al-Mujahidin" kidnapped three Japanese civilians. One of them, Noriaki Imai, 18 years old, works on the Depleted Uranium (DU) issue. The NO DU Hiroshima Project and five other Japanese organisations against the military use of DU have done an emergency appeal to save Noriaki Imai and the other two hostages. As a journalist, Noriaki went to Iraq to investigate cases of radiation sickness due to DU contamination. He has planned to publish a picture collection revealing the damage caused by DU. He is working from a sincere desire to let as many people as possible know the reality of the damage.

We call on everyone to use their personal contacts to try to free the hostages. A recent release of a Dutchman held hostage in Dagestan was mediated by a speed skate coach and a soccer trainer!

Meanwhile, the New York Daily News on April 3 reported that DU was found in the urine of 4 out of 9 US soldiers coming back home from Iraq with health problems. The GI's were stationed in As Samawah, the capital of Iraq's province Al Muthanna, which is also the area where currently Dutch, Japanese and Moldavian troops are staying. Apparently realizing that this news reveals a serious situation, no one less than Senator Hillary Clinton immediately demanded health checks for all returnees from Iraq.

The list of grassroots and other non-governmental organisations, politicians and institutes that demand a clean up of affected areas and to investigate DU poisoning has steadily grown over the years. Even the British Royal Society and the US General Accounting Office have joined the list. However, nothing has happened so far. Because of this, ICBUW is zealous for an immediate ban on the military use of DU in weapons.

The ICBUW Office has started and coordinates a wide range of actions. For example, an assessment is currently carried out to determine the most appropriate sponsor state, which will bring the draft Convention for the prohibition on the military use of DU in weaponry into the United Nations, and other states, which would be willing to serve as a co- sponsor. We keep you posted on developments after a May ICBUW meeting with the founding organisations. Decisions have to be made, for instance, about the membership criteria.

Meanwhile, in Belgium, a National Coalition is set up which has already met twice. Such National Coalitions are a means to lobby governments, and to organise public actions and meetings to influence the opinion makers.

This first issue of FRIENDLY FIRE features contributions from Maarten H.J. van den Berg (RISQ) on developments in As Samawah, Dan Bishop (IDUST) on necessity to publish correct information on DU, and Gretel Munroe (Grassroots Actions for Peace) on the US McDermott Bill and the US General Accounting Office.

Lizzy Bloem,
Henk van der Keur,
ICBUW Office
Amsterdam, The Netherlands

---

The McDermott Bill

By Gretel Munroe | Grassroots Actions for Peace

On April 10, 2003 Congressman Jim McDermott (D-Washington) introduced the Depleted Uranium (DU) Munitions Study Act of 2003 (H.R. 1483) to the U.S. House of Representatives. Specifically the bill asks for studies of the health effects of DU to be done jointly by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, the bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency to identify sites in the U.S. where DU munitions had been manufactured or used as in test firing, and would study the air, water and soil/vegetation at these sites for possible DU contamination. The bill also requires clean-up of contaminated sites.

At the present time the McDermott Bill is in three committees: the House Subcommittee on Health, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Armed Services.

Congressman McDermott, a physician, has been concerned about Gulf War veterans’ illnesses for some time. He has also been to Iraq where he talked with pediatricians and learned of their concerns about increased cancer rates in children and increases in congenital abnormalities in infants.

Initially the McDermott Bill had six co-sponsors in Congress. My congressman, Edward Markey, (Democrat, Massachusetts) was one of the original co-sponsors. There are now 31. McDermott’s office would like to have at least 50 co-sponsors. Grassroots Actions for Peace intends to work on this issue and increase the number of co-sponsors in conjunction with other grassroots groups.

The McDermott Bill, H.R. 1483, can be accessed at Thomas.loc.gov/ by plugging in the number of the bill on the computer screen.

There is a movement in progress to ask different Senators such as Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Edward Kennedy to work towards having a companion bill in the Senate. Such a bill would essentially ask for studies of the health effects of depleted uranium and an environmental clean-up of sites in the U.S. contaminated by DU. However, it might be a somewhat different bill. Several years ago, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney introduced a bill in the House of Representatives asking in addition for a ban on DU munitions, including manufacture and use of DU weapons until it could be proved that DU was harmless. Congresswoman McKinney lost in the primaries (before the 2002 elections) and consequently the bill died. A possible Senate bill would probably not go this far.

---

GAO Study

by Gretel Munroe | Grassroots Actions for Peace

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) is doing a study of the health effects of exposure to DU in veterans of the 1991 Gulf War as well as policies of the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs in identifying and medically treating veterans exposed to DU. Congressmen Robert Filner (Democrat of California) and Ciro Rodriquez, (Democrat, Texas) persuaded the GAO to take on this study. Results of the study will be available by June.

---

Let's get the story straight

by Dan Bishop | IDUST

Let's get the story straight Posted on 12 April 2004 by ICBUW

Once again, I find myself cringing at an op-ed piece about depleted uranium written by a well-meaning but misinformed activist.

Don't get me wrong. I'm more than pleased to see another article presenting the hazards and problems associated with DU brought before the public. We can't get enough publicity, to be sure. Minor misstatements here and there probably don't hurt our cause too much, but over time they could undermine our credibility. We don't need to provide our opponents with ammunition.

DU or DU coating?

In this specific case, the author used the phrase "depleted uranium coated bullets" in one place and "depleted uranium tipped weapons" in another. The words "coated" and "tipped" are entirely wrong, and tend to leave the impression that not very much DU is involved. After all, take a bullet, paint it with a DU coating, and how much DU have you really used?

In fact, a 30mm DU bullet (those used by the A-10A Thunderbolt II aircraft) is almost SOLID depleted uranium (a small amount of titanium (1%) or molybdenum (2%) is added to make for a stronger alloy). Each shell contains 300 grams of DU. That's 2/3 of a pound! These are the bullets fired from the 7-barrel GAU8A cannon in the A-10A's nose. A 4 second burst from this gun delivers between 140 and 280 rounds, depending on the firing rate. 140 rounds spread approximately 93 pounds (42 kg) of DU into the environment. If a fully loaded gun, with its ammunition capacity of 1350 rounds, were fired till empty, 891 pounds (405 kg) of DU munitions will have been expended.

105mm and 120mm tank penetrators used by the US and UK armies in their Abrams and Challenger tanks are much larger. Each of these shells contains a long rod of SOLID depleted uranium alloy. Imagine a fat broom handle made out of DU. The DU rod in a 120mm penetrator is 27 inches (68 cm) long. The 105mm shells contain between 7.41 and 8.08 pounds (3.36 kg to 3.67 kg) of DU, and the 120mm shells contain between 6.90 and 8.69 pounds (3.13 kg and 3.95 kg) of DU.

As you can see, using the terms "tipped" and "coated" in a description of these munitions totally misrepresents the amount of environmental contamination from DU weapons. Military spokespersons are more than happy to let this error slip by.

Alpha, beta, gamma...

Another misconception is one that is perpetrated (purposely) by military spokespersons and is seldom corrected by the anti-DU activists debating them. "Depleted uranium is an alpha emitter," they will say, "and alpha particles are the least penetrating type of radiation." Everything in that statement is 100% correct. But the statement itself tells only half of the story - the half the military would like you to believe.

The nature of radioactive decay is such that alpha or beta emission from a radioactive atom results in that atom's being transformed into a new and different element. When an atom of U- 238 (the 99.8% component of DU) emits an alpha particle, it decays into an atom of thorium, Th-234, which is also radioactive, but which is a BETA emitter. Furthermore, with a half life of only 24.1 days, this thorium atom will soon decay, emitting its beta particle, and transforming itself into an atom of protactinium, Pa- 234, which is ALSO a beta emitter, and has a half life of 6.75 hours. So within hours, that atom also decays and emits its beta particle. Both of these beta decays are accompanied by strong GAMMA ray emission as well. A gamma ray is a very high-energy X-ray, and is extremely penetrating.

To make a long story short, a sample of DU fresh out of the processing plant where it has just been purified, emits only alpha particles. But within days, testing that same sample will reveal beta and gamma radiation as well. After the sample is five or six months old, the concentrations of Th-234 and Pa-234 will have built up enough so that the amount of beta and gamma radiation from the sample will each be TWICE the amount of alpha radiation.

Thus external exposure to DU entails exposure to alpha, beta and gamma radiation. Although the skin will block alpha particles, beta and gamma radiation can penetrate beyond the dead outer skin layers and create damage to living tissue. Beta particles can penetrate up to 2 cm, while gamma radiation (which, through a process called the Compton effect) generates beta particle radiation all along its track through the body. Not all external exposure to alpha radiation is harmless, either. Cataracts, for example, can be caused by exposure to alpha radiation.

Just how radioactive is DU? I read a transcript the other day of a radio interview with a well known and widely traveled anti-DU activist. When her host asked if DU was radioactive, she replied, "Oh, yes. It is very radioactive." Once again I cringed. I could only assume that she misspoke accidentally under the pressure of the microphone. I've been there, so I understand.

Most of the substances with which we come into contact every day are not radioactive at all. But of the substances that are radioactive, depleted uranium is one of the least radioactive substances known to man. The military has that fact right on the money. Generally, the longer a substance 's half-life, the lower its specific activity. U-238, with a 4.5 billion year half life, thus ranks near the bottom of the scale for radioactivity. One milligram of U- 238 has a specific activity of 14.4 Becquerel, which means it emits 14.4 alpha particles every second. For comparison, it is not uncommon for a particular radioactive substance to have a specific activity of several millions of Becquerels.

Now before you rip me to shreds for daring to say the truth about DU's radioactivity, let's remember that the important issue is NOT "how radioactive is DU", but rather "how is DU's radioactivity dispensed?" If DU shells merely shattered into fragments when striking a target, the larger pieces could be picked up and stored in a repository. Only a tiny fraction of the DU would remain behind as smaller fragments dispersed into the environment. Although this would increase the background radiation levels, the observable health effects on the exposed population would be difficult to measure. (Note, however, that the presence of radioactive transuranics in the DU, such as plutonium, neptunium and americium, totally nullifies this last statement.)

However, this is not how a DU shell behaves. When the penetrator strikes a hard object, its kinetic energy is converted to heat. The heat causes the DU to ignite. Military studies report that from 10% to 70% of the DU in the penetrator is converted to micron-sized aerosol particles of DU-oxide. Other studies show that over 50% of these particles are smaller than 5 microns in diameter. Particles that small, when inhaled, become permanently lodged into the deepest recesses of one's lungs.

Inside the lungs, these particles are in intimate contact with living cells. No layer of dead skin stands between the particle and live tissue. Every alpha, beta and gamma ray that is not absorbed internally by the particle itself slices a path of destruction through living tissue. Over a year's time, 1 mg of DU undergoes over 450 million alpha decays, and the decay products (thorium and protactinium) produce over 900 million beta decays and release over 900 million gamma rays. Because the DU-oxide particles are so small, it can be assumed that a significant fraction of that radiation actually makes it into the victim's body tissue.

Dr. Durakovic has been able to estimate the initial DU-oxide body burden of several 1991 Gulf War veterans by measuring the levels of DU in their urine nine and ten years after the war (a fact that in itself proves how long-lasting DU can be when absorbed into body tissues). He determined that these veterans had absorbed an average of 0.34 mg of DU that became permanently incorporated into their bodies. (Their initial actual exposure may have been much greater.) If this is the case, then over 750 million total radiation events (1/3 of the total given in the previous paragraph) have taken place in these veteran's bodies every year, year after year, since 1991. Even if you assume that only a very small fraction of this radiation exits the particle, say 0.2%, this still results in 3.3 damaging radiation events every minute, or 1.7 million damaging events each year from the 0.34 mg of DU dispersed throughout the lungs in the form of 4.3 million 2.5 micron diameter particles.

Most scientists now believe that there is no safe level of exposure to ionizing radiation. This comes from a realization that cancer and genetic damage begins with unrepaired damage to crucial molecules (such as DNA) within a single cell. Molecular damage is exactly what takes place when alpha, beta or gamma radiation passes through a cell. Electrons are ripped from molecules as the ionized particles zip by. Each radiation event leaves a wake of disrupted molecules behind it, most in the form of free radicals. Alpha particles, being much larger and more massive than beta particles, can actually destroy whole cells. Although the body maintains a marvelous system for DNA repair and cell replacement, over time, with so many assaults, it is completely illogical to assume that no permanent damage takes place.

Atomicity

A new term was introduced in October, 2003 at the Hamburg World Uranium Weapons Conference. That term was "atomicity". Dr. Yagasaki of Japan showed that the number of radioactive atoms produced from 800 tons of DU is equivalent to 83,000 Nagasaki sized atom bombs. Since that conference, this statistic was quoted on the radio during the aforementioned interview, and I have seen it appear in print as well.

Unfortunately, the comparison between DU contamination and the Nagasaki atom bomb explosion is very misleading. Over 100,000 residents of Nagasaki were killed in the atomic blast, either instantly or shortly afterwards due to exposure to the intense radiation, which included neutrons as well as alpha, beta and gamma radiation. Over 18,000 buildings were destroyed. Comparing the atomic bomb blast and its effects to those of depleted uranium is dramatic and delivers a strong emotional appeal, but the comparison based on number of radioactive particles released (atomicity) is quite meaningless.

Secondly, no effort is made to qualify the different types of "atomicity" involved. The U-238 atoms in that 392 tons of DU have a half-life of 4.5 billion years. In other words, their radioactive decay is spread out over such a long period of time that only half of them will have decayed by the time this Earth comes to its end in the Sun's expanding corona. On the other hand, the majority of radioactive atoms dispersed over Nagasaki had much shorter half- lives. Many are essentially no longer radioactive, having progressed through 25 or 30 half-lives since 1945. But remember, the shorter the half-life, the more intense the radiation. Thus the Nagasaki victims who survived the initial blast were exposed to much more radiation in a very short period of time than the civilians in Iraq who have been exposed to depleted uranium, while the problem facing civilians where DU has been used is long term (read "forever") and chronic.

Thirdly, the Nagasaki blast produced a tremendous mixture of radioactive substances, each having its own unique biological impact on survivors. Strontium-90 replaces calcium in bone tissue; iodine-131 becomes concentrated in the thyroid; cesium-137 is a natural replacement for potassium in the body. With DU, the principal isotopes of concern are those of uranium, with very small amounts of thorium, protactinium, and contaminants such as plutonium. I say this not to understate the significance of exposure to DU, but merely to point out that the effects can be expected to be very different from exposure to elements resulting from an atomic bomb explosion.

Finally, the area significantly affected by direct DU contamination is much more wide-spread than that of a single atomic explosion. True, radioactive fallout from any nuclear test ultimately affects the entire earth, but with decreasing concentration the further one moves from the blast site. In a military conflict where DU munitions are used, every battle site throughout the entire country becomes contaminated with DU. And with the frequent sand storms that blanket wide areas, there is virtually no escape, no place to hide.

So, although it is true that there are far more radioactive atoms in the 392 tons of DU than there were resulting from the explosion of a single atom bomb over Nagasaki, there can be no meaningful comparison between the two. To attempt to do so merely clouds the issue and strains credibility, something we can ill afford to allow happen.

The Truth is Out

Sometimes those who lie become entangled in their own web of deceit. Last summer a van which contained several pounds of DU was stolen from a city street in Essex, UK. Authorities were particularly anxious to recover the vehicle and its contents. They publicly expressed the fear that terrorists might use the DU to create a "dirty bomb", that is, a bomb that could spread harmful radioactivity into an urban environment. If DU were as harmless as they wish us to believe, how could it be of any use in a "dirty bomb"? On the other hand, if it can be used effectively in that way, how can the USA and UK justify their use of DU weaponry in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Serbia? Every 30mm shell and 105/120 mm penetrator clearly becomes a miniature "dirty bomb". Their cumulative effect easily exceeds that of a dozens of large bombs. Would someone tell me why the use of such dirty bombs does not constitute a crime against humanity?

Dutch military in Iraq delays troop transfer from suspected DU contaminated area Posted on 12 April 2004 by ICBUW

by Maarten H.J. van den Berg | RISQ

When Dutch marines arrived in a base camp near the town of As Samawah, Iraq, to replace American troops last summer, they measured unacceptably high levels of radioactivity. Yet troop transfer from the area was delayed by three weeks, putting both Dutch and American troops at risk of exposure to depleted uranium (DU).

On July 24th last year, Dutch troops arrived in ‘Camp Smitty’, a base set up by the Americans in an abandoned train depot near the town of As Samawah. Located along the railway track from Basra to Baghdad, and consisting of several concrete buildings big enough to lodge both troops and their vehicles, the location seemed a perfect outpost.

Set to replace the 442nd US Military Police Brigade stationed in the depot since early June, the Dutch troops put up their field beds inside, granting them at least some shelter from the ever-present desert heat and sand storms in the area, even though the buildings were dirty, dusty, vermin-infested and most windows were broken. Meals and other collective gatherings were held outside on the yard along the railway tracks amidst abandoned train engines and carriages, wrecked Iraqi tanks, unexploded ordnance, and other remnants of war.

Settled all right thus by military standards, the Dutch troops could have made Camp Smitty their 'home', just as the Americans had done for months. Yet shortly after their arrival, they made an alarming discovery, which according to Sgt. Juan Vega, senior medic with the US 442nd, led the Dutch “to pitch camp in the desert instead”. As Mr Vega told the New York-based Daily News “the Dutch swept the area around the train depot with Geiger counters and their medics confided to [me] they had found high radiation levels”.

According to Mr Vega and other soldiers interviewed by the paper, the radiation may have come from the remains of DU shells scattering the compound or one of the wrecked Iraqi tanks, which had been hauled onto railroad cars just outside the depot. Yet, since DU can take the form of a very fine, toxic and radiocative dust that easily spreads, a much greater part of the compound may have been contaminated.

As quite a few of the American troops who were based in Camp Smitty, are still suffering from chronic nausea, skin rashes and migraines, they suspect they may have inhaled a toxic dosis of DU dust during their stay. Already, four out of nine veterans who volunteered for a test, were found to have higher than normal levels of uranium in their urine.

While the US Department of Defence has recently announced it will investigate the case of the veterans from Camp Smitty, military personnel representatives in the Netherlands have raised concerns about the health of Dutch troops that have stayed there.

Yesterday, a spokesperson of the Dutch Military of Defence conceded that “upon arrival, the marines declared part of the compound off-limits”, assuring that “all necessary precautionary measures were taken”. A source in one of the military personnel unions confirmed that they were informed by the Ministry about “certain measurements, which led the troops to close off a building on the compound”. However, the source said, “no reference was made to the possibility of DU contamination there”.

As the new camp out in the desert was still under construction, the Dutch troops stayed in the train depot at least until mid August. Pictures archived on the website of the Ministry of Defence show marines resting on field beds set up inside one of the buildings and sharing meals on the yard outside as late as 6 August 2003. By that time, they had been on the compound for over two weeks, even as 90 of them fell ill ? some so much so that they had to be IV-fed. According to the Ministry they had contracted a virus, “due to the high temperatures, the change in food and lifestyle, and the higher concentration of viruses in the air of hot countries such as Iraq”.

Note: All over Iraq, the remains of spent DU shells and DU-contaminated debris have been found littering the streets in urban areas. Some wrecked vehicles have been towed away, and the most obvious contaminated sites are marked. However, most locations have not even been identified let alone cleaned, even though there is a widely shared consensus that DU contamination can be a potential health hazard.

To minimize the risk of exposure, foreign troops have been instructed to stay away from potentially contaminated areas as much as possible or to wear, at least, respiratory protection and gloves when it is inevitable to enter such sites.

As for Iraqi civilians, there is no indication that the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) has properly informed the population about DU contamination. The British Ministry of Defence merely affirms that Iraqi locals have been warned “that they should not go near or touch any debris they find on the battlefield" Perhaps this would have sufficed, were it not for the fact that quite a few battles have been fought in densely populated areas, where it is virtually impossible for residents to avoid all remnants of war.

This article was first published by RISQ | Review of International Social Questions, c 08 April 2004. For more RISQ reports on DU and links to external resources, please refer to the RISQ DU Dossier.